Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Ribbon (planar?) speakers

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 6:42:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

At the very end of my last spearker buying experience I heard a pair of
ribbon speakers with built in subs powered by a lower priced tube amp
and pre amp. (Can`t remember the makers). I sat directly in front of
them and while the sound was muddy ( the dealer said he had had better
ribbons in the past) it was a completely different experience than
listening to a room filling balanced sound. More like being in front of
a tidal wave of sound. Liked it , but don`t know if the impression would
grow old fast. Any experiences? SD

More about : ribbon planar speakers

Anonymous
April 20, 2004 6:39:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

neongen@webtv.net wrote:

> At the very end of my last spearker buying experience I heard a pair of
> ribbon speakers with built in subs powered by a lower priced tube amp
> and pre amp. (Can`t remember the makers). I sat directly in front of
> them and while the sound was muddy ( the dealer said he had had better
> ribbons in the past) it was a completely different experience than
> listening to a room filling balanced sound. More like being in front of
> a tidal wave of sound. Liked it , but don`t know if the impression would
> grow old fast. Any experiences? SD

You really need to hear the Martin Logan hybrid planar speakers
and the Magnepans - totally different experience. Much better.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 8:26:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Which do you prefer?

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> neongen@webtv.net wrote:
>
>> At the very end of my last spearker buying experience I heard a pair of
>> ribbon speakers with built in subs powered by a lower priced tube amp
>> and pre amp. (Can`t remember the makers). I sat directly in front of
>> them and while the sound was muddy ( the dealer said he had had better
>> ribbons in the past) it was a completely different experience than
>> listening to a room filling balanced sound. More like being in front of
>> a tidal wave of sound. Liked it , but don`t know if the impression would
>> grow old fast. Any experiences? SD
>
>
> You really need to hear the Martin Logan hybrid planar speakers
> and the Magnepans - totally different experience. Much better.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 9:49:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Philip Meech wrote:

> Which do you prefer?

It's a tough call. The Magnepans basically require a subwoofer but
sound very very good down to ~50hz, where they really don't
go below(nothing at all, not even a trailing off)

The Martin Logan hybrids have the same top-end but use a
conventional woofer for the bass. The lower 2-3 octaves are
done by the woofer and don't sound as clean, but the speaker
will give some response below 50hz, even if it is at -5 or -10db.

Of the two, the Martin Logans will go louder. The Magnepans
have much larger percieved impact, though - at least up to
wher they won't go much louder.

So you really should listen to both.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 1:42:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:49:05 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
<josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Philip Meech wrote:
>
>> Which do you prefer?
>
>It's a tough call. The Magnepans basically require a subwoofer but
>sound very very good down to ~50hz, where they really don't
>go below(nothing at all, not even a trailing off)
>
>The Martin Logan hybrids have the same top-end but use a
>conventional woofer for the bass. The lower 2-3 octaves are
>done by the woofer and don't sound as clean, but the speaker
>will give some response below 50hz, even if it is at -5 or -10db.
>
>Of the two, the Martin Logans will go louder. The Magnepans
>have much larger percieved impact, though - at least up to
>wher they won't go much louder.
>
>So you really should listen to both.

And then graduate to Quads.............. :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 2:46:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <c622n20c2r@news4.newsguy.com>, neongen@webtv.net wrote:

> At the very end of my last spearker buying experience I heard a pair of
> ribbon speakers with built in subs
.....
Liked it , but don`t know if the impression would
> grow old fast. Any experiences? SD

I have had a pair of Apogee Divas for about 13 years and I haven't heard
anything I would want to replace them with for anything near what I paid
for them. I can listen for hours without fatigue. I don't know if they
are the most accurate, but they go deep and through a very stable
sound-stage. You can actually move around the room without the
instruments shifting very much.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 3:34:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

The impression does not "age". I have had Magnepans, Soundlab
electrostatics and cone speakers. I'm awaiting delivery on the home
theater set of Magnepans as we speak. If you like the sound, you will
continue to like it. They will not, in my experience, have the same
direct impact as cones, but the overall experience is what it is.

-- Bob T.

neongen@webtv.net wrote:

>At the very end of my last spearker buying experience I heard a pair of
>ribbon speakers with built in subs powered by a lower priced tube amp
>and pre amp. (Can`t remember the makers). I sat directly in front of
>them and while the sound was muddy ( the dealer said he had had better
>ribbons in the past) it was a completely different experience than
>listening to a room filling balanced sound. More like being in front of
>a tidal wave of sound. Liked it , but don`t know if the impression would
>grow old fast. Any experiences? SD
>
>
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 3:52:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/20/04 5:42 PM, in article hPghc.6931$GR.826588@attbi_s01, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>> Of the two, the Martin Logans will go louder. The Magnepans
>> have much larger percieved impact, though - at least up to
>> wher they won't go much louder.
>>
>> So you really should listen to both.
>
> And then graduate to Quads.............. :-)

OUCH!

Quads are great - but seem to have the Maggie problem of a difficult low
end.

I prefer the cones and domes of a Thiel!
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 3:57:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lodhc.5958$GR.719043@attbi_s01...
> Philip Meech wrote:
>
> > Which do you prefer?
>
> It's a tough call. The Magnepans basically require a subwoofer but
> sound very very good down to ~50hz, where they really don't
> go below(nothing at all, not even a trailing off)

All depends on the model. My 1.6's are rated down to 40Hz an in room I
think they do even better. The 1.6's and up can actually be used without a
sub for almost all music, but they will not have an over whelming bass.
But, the bass they produce is superb and sounds so real it's scary.

> The Martin Logan hybrids have the same top-end but use a
> conventional woofer for the bass. The lower 2-3 octaves are
> done by the woofer and don't sound as clean, but the speaker
> will give some response below 50hz, even if it is at -5 or -10db.

I have to disagree with you here. I think the ML's and Maggie's sound very
different. Both are great, but just different. IMO the ML's have a smaller
sweet spot and provide a little better definition and detail, but do not
have the depth of the maggie's. I've also never heard a ML that mated the
woofer well with the panel. There always seemed to be a dip in the mid
bass. Maybe this is why they too have come out with a Planar speaker? The
one good thing about the Maggie's is that if you get a fairly fast sub, they
are pretty easy to set-up and get a good cohesive sound throuout.

> Of the two, the Martin Logans will go louder. The Magnepans
> have much larger percieved impact, though - at least up to
> wher they won't go much louder.

Once again I have to disagree. Both take allot of power to drive properly,
with the ML's requing an amp that is basically stable at 2 Ohms. The
Maggies are 4 Ohm, but are a pretty consistant four Ohms. I heard the 3.6's
once with a couple of huge AR amp's and the things were just awesome and
could play louder than you could possibly stand to listen to them. My 1.6's
are fuse and I have never blown the fuse. I use them for music and HT and
drive them with a Outlaw amp that puts out 300 watt rms into a 4 ohm load.
Big room with 14' ceiling and they just cruise along. Your statment is true
of some of the older Maggie's, has it been awhile since you've listened to
them?

> So you really should listen to both.

Agree. Both are great, but just different. To me nothing beats the sound
of a properly set-up and amplified Maggie.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 4:53:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hPghc.6931$GR.826588@attbi_s01...
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:49:05 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Philip Meech wrote:
> >
> >> Which do you prefer?
> >
> >It's a tough call. The Magnepans basically require a subwoofer but
> >sound very very good down to ~50hz, where they really don't
> >go below(nothing at all, not even a trailing off)
> >
> >The Martin Logan hybrids have the same top-end but use a
> >conventional woofer for the bass. The lower 2-3 octaves are
> >done by the woofer and don't sound as clean, but the speaker
> >will give some response below 50hz, even if it is at -5 or -10db.
> >
> >Of the two, the Martin Logans will go louder. The Magnepans
> >have much larger percieved impact, though - at least up to
> >wher they won't go much louder.
> >
> >So you really should listen to both.
>
> And then graduate to Quads.............. :-)
> --
>
Magnepan 3.6 go down to 34Hz +/-db.
Forget the Quads and graduate with a Ph.D. to the Magnepan 20.1, goes down
to 25Hz all +/- 3db. All dependent upon your room and placement within. The
larger radiating surfaces of the bass panels of these speakers put the
competition to shame, regardless of their claimed low frequency response.
(Quality vs. quantity !) In fact if they went lower, they would be
overwhelming. I've been living with large Maggies in different listening
rooms for over 30 years, and would accept nothing other. The sound levels
they can produce would cause a melt down of any similarly driven girlyman
Quad. (Martin Logan drivers would come loose, then shake, rattle and roll.)
With the bigger Maggies you can completely forget about 5, 6 or 7.1
channel formats, because they wouldn't tell you anything you would ever
need or want to hear.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 6:39:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/20/04 7:57 PM, in article c64de70nml@news4.newsguy.com, "Jack Dotson"
<jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote:

>> Philip Meech wrote:
>>
>>> Which do you prefer?
>>

Magnepans or Martin Logan, eh?

I would have to choose Magnepans - there is something about those panels
that I really like - they are a sight less expansive, too!
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 7:47:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Jack Dotson wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:lodhc.5958$GR.719043@attbi_s01...
>
>>Philip Meech wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Which do you prefer?
>>
>>It's a tough call. The Magnepans basically require a subwoofer but
>>sound very very good down to ~50hz, where they really don't
>>go below(nothing at all, not even a trailing off)
>
>
> All depends on the model. My 1.6's are rated down to 40Hz an in room I
> think they do even better. The 1.6's and up can actually be used without a
> sub for almost all music, but they will not have an over whelming bass.
> But, the bass they produce is superb and sounds so real it's scary.

That lower than 40hz is harmonics playing tricks on your brain.
Still, it's a quite convincing "trick".

>
>>The Martin Logan hybrids have the same top-end but use a
>>conventional woofer for the bass. The lower 2-3 octaves are
>>done by the woofer and don't sound as clean, but the speaker
>>will give some response below 50hz, even if it is at -5 or -10db.
>
> I have to disagree with you here. I think the ML's and Maggie's sound very
> different. Both are great, but just different. IMO the ML's have a smaller
> sweet spot and provide a little better definition and detail, but do not
> have the depth of the maggie's. I've also never heard a ML that mated the
> woofer well with the panel.

You are thinking electrostatic MLs. They make two planar speakers now,
and the upper-end model has a huge midrange ribbon/planar unit in it.
1.5*6 inch planar midrange. THat's a big ribbon tweeter.

ML also is a push/pull design like their electrostatics, so it's
more accurate and controlled.

> There always seemed to be a dip in the mid
> bass. Maybe this is why they too have come out with a Planar speaker? The
> one good thing about the Maggie's is that if you get a fairly fast sub, they
> are pretty easy to set-up and get a good cohesive sound throuout.

They wanted a good entry-level speaker that could be driven at 5 ohms.
MLs are great speakers, but the amplifier requirement is a killer.
4 ohm HT receivers, otoh, do exist for under $2000.

>>Of the two, the Martin Logans will go louder. The Magnepans
>>have much larger percieved impact, though - at least up to
>>wher they won't go much louder.
>
> Once again I have to disagree.

ML *planars*. They are very different sounding than the others.

> Both take allot of power to drive properly,
> with the ML's requing an amp that is basically stable at 2 Ohms. The
> Maggies are 4 Ohm, but are a pretty consistant four Ohms. I heard the 3.6's
> once with a couple of huge AR amp's and the things were just awesome and
> could play louder than you could possibly stand to listen to them.

4 Ohm planar tweeter and midrange, 6 ohm woofer. Basically a ruler-flat
5 ohm load.

http://www.martinloganowners.com/ph_mosaic.html
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 8:58:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c64qsr02klm@news3.newsguy.com...

> 4 Ohm planar tweeter and midrange, 6 ohm woofer. Basically a ruler-flat
> 5 ohm load.
>
> http://www.martinloganowners.com/ph_mosaic.html

40" High? I'd have to listen to them lying on the floor, or else elevate
them!
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 8:31:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 21 Apr 2004 03:47:39 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
<josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Jack Dotson wrote:
>
>> I think the ML's and Maggie's sound very
>> different. Both are great, but just different. IMO the ML's have a smaller
>> sweet spot and provide a little better definition and detail, but do not
>> have the depth of the maggie's. I've also never heard a ML that mated the
>> woofer well with the panel.

I agree with the above, although the integration is getting better,
the Ascent is really impressive in that regard.

>You are thinking electrostatic MLs. They make two planar speakers now,
>and the upper-end model has a huge midrange ribbon/planar unit in it.
>1.5*6 inch planar midrange. THat's a big ribbon tweeter.

Given that Maggies and the old Apogees have a 4 *foot* tweeter, that
ain't big!

>ML also is a push/pull design like their electrostatics, so it's
>more accurate and controlled.

A theoretical point only, as the old single-sided Apogees had some of
the lowest distortion ever seen in a speaker.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 8:32:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:52:29 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 4/20/04 5:42 PM, in article hPghc.6931$GR.826588@attbi_s01, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Of the two, the Martin Logans will go louder. The Magnepans
>>> have much larger percieved impact, though - at least up to
>>> wher they won't go much louder.
>>>
>>> So you really should listen to both.
>>
>> And then graduate to Quads.............. :-)
>
>OUCH!
>
>Quads are great - but seem to have the Maggie problem of a difficult low
>end.

IME, Quads are fine in the bass, they just don't have all the boom and
resonances of box speakers, so the bass is totally clean. If you like
to play loud, then the new double-bass panel 989 should answer any
reasonable needs. I use Apogee Duetta Signatures myself, but of course
one can't recommend these to a new buyer! :-(

>I prefer the cones and domes of a Thiel!

I don't like the way the 3.6 made my ears bleed............. :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 9:24:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Norman Schwartz wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:c64qsr02klm@news3.newsguy.com...
>
>
>>4 Ohm planar tweeter and midrange, 6 ohm woofer. Basically a ruler-flat
>>5 ohm load.
>>
>>http://www.martinloganowners.com/ph_mosaic.html
>
>
> 40" High? I'd have to listen to them lying on the floor, or else elevate
> them!

Lol. Well, for *most* people, the sheer size of the lower frequency
panels taking up their walls or front of their living room is
a negative :) 

They project upwards very well - no 5 inch wide sweet spot that
goes away if you stand up syndrome like the smaller ML stats.
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 4:09:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/21/04 12:32 PM, in article fmxhc.183691$JO3.104942@attbi_s04, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>> Quads are great - but seem to have the Maggie problem of a difficult low
>> end.
>
> IME, Quads are fine in the bass, they just don't have all the boom and
> resonances of box speakers, so the bass is totally clean. If you like
> to play loud, then the new double-bass panel 989 should answer any
> reasonable needs. I use Apogee Duetta Signatures myself, but of course
> one can't recommend these to a new buyer! :-(

Too bad about that!

I wish I had the $$$ for the Quad 989's :( 

>> I prefer the cones and domes of a Thiel!
>
> I don't like the way the 3.6 made my ears bleed............. :-)

Heh. I only have "measely" 2.4's -- a treat to the ears, though.

I was determined to get a decent, though inexpansive sound system (to me at
the time that meant under $2k) - and ended up spending nearly double that on
the speakers alone! ACK!

Still, as long as the Thiels are fed well, it sounds AMAZING.
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 6:57:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Hello all,

I got "hooked" on Magnepans after listening to them in a store and then
purchased MG12's (best performance/price ratio I beleive of any speaker).
You will find Magnepan listeners the most loyal of any speaker, anywhere.
There is a reason for this.

I play music and record music and listen to a lot of music. Nothing gives a
sound stage like dipolar's. Listening to a "box" speaker after is like
running over my instruments with a steam roller, flaaaaat. I also beleive
that the attack and decay (physical response to the electrical signal) is
much, much faster than any cone element I have ever heard.

I could not resist a set of used Tympani IVa's and they consume my life (60"
ribbon tweeter, double bass panels). Forget sub woofers they are two slow
and out of place and you don't need them for 3.6's, tympani's, or 20's.

Forget the surround sound. It is cheezy compared to the imaging of these
(those who listen to my system and have never heard dipoles before ask me,
"where are the surround speakers? =imaging). I replaced my Adcom surround
preamp witha Simaudio, class A preamp this month (2 channel only).

I disconnected my Tympanis while spring cleaning and connected a set of
Rega, 2 way's while vacuuming and cleaning. My kids (14 and 19) who don't
know any audio jargon or brand names (only good music) said "when are you
going to connect the REAL speakers?"

That said it all.

Go for dipoles, Ill bet they'll be Magnepan's.

Cheers all,

Tom eh!

"Robert Trosper" <rtrosper@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:Krihc.168564$gA5.1966652@attbi_s03...
> The impression does not "age". I have had Magnepans, Soundlab
> electrostatics and cone speakers. I'm awaiting delivery on the home
> theater set of Magnepans as we speak. If you like the sound, you will
> continue to like it. They will not, in my experience, have the same
> direct impact as cones, but the overall experience is what it is.
>
> -- Bob T.
>
> neongen@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >At the very end of my last spearker buying experience I heard a pair of
> >ribbon speakers with built in subs powered by a lower priced tube amp
> >and pre amp. (Can`t remember the makers). I sat directly in front of
> >them and while the sound was muddy ( the dealer said he had had better
> >ribbons in the past) it was a completely different experience than
> >listening to a room filling balanced sound. More like being in front of
> >a tidal wave of sound. Liked it , but don`t know if the impression would
> >grow old fast. Any experiences? SD
> >
> >
>
>
April 22, 2004 5:52:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Maybe I should have started a new thread for this question, but could
someone give me a primer on how ribbon speakers work? Also, definitions for
the terms involved - planar, dipole, electrostatic, etc.

Thanks in advance!
Anonymous
April 22, 2004 9:27:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 22 Apr 2004 13:52:44 GMT, "Cossie" <billbalmer@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

>Maybe I should have started a new thread for this question, but could
>someone give me a primer on how ribbon speakers work? Also, definitions for
>the terms involved - planar, dipole, electrostatic, etc.

A ribbon speaker works in exactly the same way as a 'normal' cone
speaker, except that the ribbon is the 'voice coil', and the magnet
assembly is straight rather than round. Genuine ribbons are suspended
between two linear magnets, so that they operate symmetrically, while
the more common large planar speakers like Maggies have a large array
of magnets behind a diaphragm which has a long wire zigzagging across
its face, lined up with the gaps between the magnets. Such a
single-sided system is theoretically inferior to the true ribbon, but
in practice still works pretty well.

A planar speaker is simply one which has a large flat diaphragm
producing the sound, rather than a series of small cones/domes. Almost
all planar speakers are also dipoles, which means that they radiate
from both sides of the diaphragm, rather than having the rear
radiation absorbed by a box. Note that you can also make a
conventional box speaker dipole, by having another cone on the rear of
cabinet, radiating out of phase with the one on the front. This is
commonly seen in Home Theater surround speakers, although there is
usually a shallower angle between front and rear cones, rather than
the 180 degrees of the true dipole.

The above designs are elctromagnetic, i.e. they work in just the same
way as a conventional cone speaker - or any other electric motor.
Electrostatic speakers do not use a magnetic field, instead they have
a large 'stator' diaphragm which is charged to several thousand volts,
and is typically a large perforated sheet of metal (or two diaphragms,
for push-pull designs such as the classic Quad). The motor diaphragm
is a high resistivity plastic sheet, held in tenson close to the
stator electrode(s), and driven by a very high voltage audio signal,
normally generated by a step-up transformer. The resulting variations
in the electrostatic field force the motor diaphragm to move with
relation to the stators, producing the sound output.

Please note that the above is a highly simplified version of a very
complex subject, before Dick Pierce jumps all over me! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 12:04:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<hPghc.6931$GR.826588@attbi_s01>...
> And then graduate to Quads.............. :-)

And then do post-grad work with the Linkwitz Orions :-). Here's an
URL:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com

They are dipolar speakers (actually dipolar through the bass and
midrange, and cardioid in the tweeter) that use dynamic drivers
instead of planar speakers. As a result, they:

1. Play louder with less distortion
2. Have good bass response
3. Have a much better controlled high-frequency dispersion than
planars

I think that going to box woofers for bass like some hybrids do is a
bad idea. One of the best things a dipolar speaker does is excite
fewer room modes by feeding less energy in more restricted directions
into a room. And this is especially beneficial in the bass,
especially when the Fletcher-Munson equi-loudness hearing curves in
the bass are taken into account, because any incremental change in
bass level is perceived as a larger change in loudness. In other
words, reducing unwanted bass energy has a large perceptual effect.
The bass clarity, among many other things, from the Orions is
something else to behold.

--Andre
Anonymous
April 23, 2004 9:11:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 22 Apr 2004 20:04:24 GMT, andrey@silcom.com (Andre Yew) wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<hPghc.6931$GR.826588@attbi_s01>...
>> And then graduate to Quads.............. :-)
>
>And then do post-grad work with the Linkwitz Orions :-). Here's an
>URL:
>
>http://www.linkwitzlab.com
>
>They are dipolar speakers (actually dipolar through the bass and
>midrange, and cardioid in the tweeter) that use dynamic drivers
>instead of planar speakers. As a result, they:
>
>1. Play louder with less distortion

Not according to any figures I've ever seen, when compared to large
planars like the Apogee Diva or Maggie Tympani.

>2. Have good bass response

The Apogee Diva and Duetta are flat to 20Hz - that's enough bass for
most people! Indeed, how *could* a dynamic dipole have deeper bass
than any other dipole of similar width?

>3. Have a much better controlled high-frequency dispersion than
>planars

What, better dispersion than the 10mm ribbon of a Diva or big Maggie?
I don't think so!

>I think that going to box woofers for bass like some hybrids do is a
>bad idea.

It is however a practical solution to the size problem.

> One of the best things a dipolar speaker does is excite
>fewer room modes by feeding less energy in more restricted directions
>into a room. And this is especially beneficial in the bass,
>especially when the Fletcher-Munson equi-loudness hearing curves in
>the bass are taken into account, because any incremental change in
>bass level is perceived as a larger change in loudness. In other
>words, reducing unwanted bass energy has a large perceptual effect.
>The bass clarity, among many other things, from the Orions is
>something else to behold.

But no better than that of any other large planar. I'm not knocking
the excellent Audio Artistry dipoles, but they have no practical
advantage over a well-made planar.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 24, 2004 2:44:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<H6cic.8705$0u6.1628737@attbi_s03>...
> >1. Play louder with less distortion
>
> Not according to any figures I've ever seen, when compared to large
> planars like the Apogee Diva or Maggie Tympani.

I very much doubt bass response and distortion of either of those two
speakers can match the Orion's LF output for reasons given in 2 below.
As for higher frequency distortion, despite audiophile folklore,
panel speakers have not generally been low distortion, especially
compared to the Orion's low-distortion drivers. Add to that the
in-band resonances common to all panels speakers due to their size and
geometry, and I don't think there's a comparison. It's interesting to
me that the discussion was about upgrading from QUADs and somehow
Apogees and Maggies found their way in.

> >2. Have good bass response
>
> The Apogee Diva and Duetta are flat to 20Hz - that's enough bass for
> most people! Indeed, how *could* a dynamic dipole have deeper bass
> than any other dipole of similar width?

Because the system is actively filtered to compensate for the dipole
short circuit. With the passive crossovers of the various panels,
flat bass isn't a given. Though panels may have large radiating
areas, they also have miniscule excursion and non-pistonic action.
Orions are also rated to 20 Hz, and are relatively sensitive speakers
because of the active crossover.

> What, better dispersion than the 10mm ribbon of a Diva or big Maggie?
> I don't think so!

Maggies don't tend to have very nicely measuring dispersion due to the
their large panel sizes. I haven't seen a measurement of a Diva.

> It is however a practical solution to the size problem.

Yes, but one that gives up the prime advantage of dipolar radiation.
As Linkwitz's work shows, one doesn't need a huge form factor to do
good dipole bass.

> But no better than that of any other large planar. I'm not knocking
> the excellent Audio Artistry dipoles, but they have no practical
> advantage over a well-made planar.

They are indeed more practical because Apogees are no longer available
new, and the Orions are considerably smaller and easier to live with
than the large panels that may begin to approach some aspects of the
Orion's performance. The size of the Orions makes them that much
easier move around for setup and positioning. Their fairly smooth
dispersion also eases setup as it's no long as critical to be in the
sweet spot for full-frequency sound compared to panels with dodgy
dispersion. The system includes everything including an appropriately
sized amplifier for total ease in setting up such a system --- you
just supply a source and preamp. BTW, the Orions are a considerable
improvement over the AA dipoles.

--Andre
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 9:19:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:44:37 GMT, andrey@silcom.com (Andre Yew) wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<H6cic.8705$0u6.1628737@attbi_s03>...
>> >1. Play louder with less distortion
>>
>> Not according to any figures I've ever seen, when compared to large
>> planars like the Apogee Diva or Maggie Tympani.
>
>I very much doubt bass response and distortion of either of those two
>speakers can match the Orion's LF output for reasons given in 2 below.
> As for higher frequency distortion, despite audiophile folklore,
>panel speakers have not generally been low distortion, especially
>compared to the Orion's low-distortion drivers. Add to that the
>in-band resonances common to all panels speakers due to their size and
>geometry, and I don't think there's a comparison. It's interesting to
>me that the discussion was about upgrading from QUADs and somehow
>Apogees and Maggies found their way in.
>
>> >2. Have good bass response
>>
>> The Apogee Diva and Duetta are flat to 20Hz - that's enough bass for
>> most people! Indeed, how *could* a dynamic dipole have deeper bass
>> than any other dipole of similar width?
>
>Because the system is actively filtered to compensate for the dipole
>short circuit.

That's not an answer, as you can equally well EQ a planar dipole.

>With the passive crossovers of the various panels,
>flat bass isn't a given. Though panels may have large radiating
>areas, they also have miniscule excursion and non-pistonic action.

The *displacement* however is quite similar (for the electrodynamics,
at least), and they are designed to provide low distortionat high SPLs
even allowing for the 'drumskin' motion.

>Orions are also rated to 20 Hz, and are relatively sensitive speakers
>because of the active crossover.

That is a nonsensical statement - an active speaker doesn't *have*
sensitivity as such.

>> What, better dispersion than the 10mm ribbon of a Diva or big Maggie?
>> I don't think so!
>
>Maggies don't tend to have very nicely measuring dispersion due to the
>their large panel sizes. I haven't seen a measurement of a Diva.

You specified treble dispersion. In this area, the true ribbon Maggie
and Diva tweeters are noticeably superior to the normal 25-30mm dome
tweeter.

>> It is however a practical solution to the size problem.
>
>Yes, but one that gives up the prime advantage of dipolar radiation.
>As Linkwitz's work shows, one doesn't need a huge form factor to do
>good dipole bass.

But you *do* need massive cone drivers with active EQ and a poweful
amplifier - it all depends what you're trying to achieve - there are
no 'free lunches' in acoustics!

>> But no better than that of any other large planar. I'm not knocking
>> the excellent Audio Artistry dipoles, but they have no practical
>> advantage over a well-made planar.
>
>They are indeed more practical because Apogees are no longer available
>new,

But Maggies are.

> and the Orions are considerably smaller and easier to live with
>than the large panels that may begin to approach some aspects of the
>Orion's performance.

That's simply a matter of taste. If you wish to achieve the same
interaction with the room, then the speaker has to be in the same
place, and may well look even worse as a tiddly speaker standing all
on its own in the middle of the room!

> The size of the Orions makes them that much
>easier move around for setup and positioning.

Rubbish! What's difficult about moving a Maggie?

> Their fairly smooth
>dispersion also eases setup as it's no long as critical to be in the
>sweet spot for full-frequency sound compared to panels with dodgy
>dispersion.

That's because it doesn't have good imaging.......

I have never heard *any* kind of speaker with pinpoint imaging which
had a large sweet spot - nor would I expect to, as it's just basic
physics, really.

It's exactly analagous to people complaining that ultra-high quality
camera lenses don't seem to have much depth of field - that's because
the plane of sharpness is so much better defined!

> The system includes everything including an appropriately
>sized amplifier for total ease in setting up such a system --- you
>just supply a source and preamp. BTW, the Orions are a considerable
>improvement over the AA dipoles.

It's all a matter of taste at that quality level, and I still prefer
the interaction of a line source with the room. You do not get this
with the dynamic dipoles, whose *vertical* dispersion is anything but
smooth!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 10:12:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<QOakc.43042$0u6.7161157@attbi_s03>...
> That's not an answer, as you can equally well EQ a planar dipole.

Yes, but since the commercial planar dipoles use passive crossovers
you can only compensate for dipole short circuiting at the expense of
sensitivity, so it is a valid point that active dipole radiators can
be more easily implemented for higher performance levels.

> The *displacement* however is quite similar (for the electrodynamics,
> at least), and they are designed to provide low distortionat high SPLs
> even allowing for the 'drumskin' motion.

Non-pistonic motion doesn't produce distortion, but instead produces
resonances that can be difficult to correct by electronic means. I
yet to hear or hear of a planar have impressive bass response.

> That is a nonsensical statement - an active speaker doesn't *have*
> sensitivity as such.

It's not if you look at it as a whole system including system noise
floor, dynamic range, and power required. As stated above, an active
crossover makes things easier to implement.

> But you *do* need massive cone drivers with active EQ and a poweful
> amplifier - it all depends what you're trying to achieve - there are
> no 'free lunches' in acoustics!

Hmm, the two channels of 60 Watts driving my Orion's bass drivers
don't seem to be very powerful. Dynamic drivers are the way to go for
dipolar bass, for excursion, pistonic motion, predictability, size,
cost, and ultimately performance.

> Rubbish! What's difficult about moving a Maggie?

They're big and ungainly.

> That's because it doesn't have good imaging.......

And you know this by listening to the Orions? Planar radiators' peaky
horizontal dispersion characteristics as well as structure-related
resonances are more believable sources of imaging pickiness than their
precision of imaging.

--Andre
Anonymous
May 5, 2004 2:35:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Andre wrote:


>Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<QOakc.43042$0u6.7161157@attbi_s03>...
>> That's not an answer, as you can equally well EQ a planar dipole.
>
>Yes, but since the commercial planar dipoles use passive crossovers
>you can only compensate for dipole short circuiting at the expense of
>sensitivity, so it is a valid point that active dipole radiators can
>be more easily implemented for higher performance levels.
>

Not all the commercial planars use crossovers at all. For example, Quad ESL's
and Martin Logan CLS II's have no crossovers employed.


>> The *displacement* however is quite similar (for the electrodynamics,
>> at least), and they are designed to provide low distortionat high SPLs
>> even allowing for the 'drumskin' motion.
>
>Non-pistonic motion doesn't produce distortion, but instead produces
>resonances that can be difficult to correct by electronic means. I
>yet to hear or hear of a planar have impressive bass response.
>

Of course, this would depend upon how you define and/or perceive "impressive
bass response". However, you might want to withold judgment on this issue
unless you have heard a Magnepan 20.1 or one of the large Sound Labs
electrostatics.



>> That is a nonsensical statement - an active speaker doesn't *have*
>> sensitivity as such.
>
>It's not if you look at it as a whole system including system noise
>floor, dynamic range, and power required. As stated above, an active
>crossover makes things easier to implement.
>
>> But you *do* need massive cone drivers with active EQ and a poweful
>> amplifier - it all depends what you're trying to achieve - there are
>> no 'free lunches' in acoustics!
>
>Hmm, the two channels of 60 Watts driving my Orion's bass drivers
>don't seem to be very powerful. Dynamic drivers are the way to go for
>dipolar bass, for excursion, pistonic motion, predictability, size,
>cost, and ultimately performance.
>
>> Rubbish! What's difficult about moving a Maggie?
>
>They're big and ungainly.
>
>> That's because it doesn't have good imaging.......
>
>And you know this by listening to the Orions? Planar radiators' peaky
>horizontal dispersion characteristics as well as structure-related
>resonances are more believable sources of imaging pickiness than their
>precision of imaging.
>

Quads (other than their first speaker) use a point source pattern, and both
Martin Logans and Sound Labs speakers use a curved diaphragm to ameliorate
horizontal dispersion problems. Obviously, many of their satisfied users don't
consider their imaging to be a problem. I've owned Martin Logan CLS IIs for
about 9 years and don't consider their imaging to be at all problematic. One
can also argue that in real life concert settings the imaging in no way
approaches the "pinpoint imaging" that seems to be the preference for some
minimonitor afficionados. Other variables, such as "truth of timbre",
transparency, relatively low distortion, and a realistic sense of the space
(and imaging) in which the performer originally recorded the event is more
important to me, and I would venture to say, to many users of planar speakers.





>--Andre
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bruce J. Richman
Anonymous
May 6, 2004 2:46:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Andre Yew wrote:

>Non-pistonic motion doesn't produce distortion, but instead produces
>resonances that can be difficult to correct by electronic means. I
>yet to hear or hear of a planar have impressive bass response.
>

Then you just haven't heard very widely or very far. Soundlab A1's, that
I used to have, Magneplanar 3A's with sufficient amplification, Maggie
20.1's certainly all have impressive bass response set up correctly.
Arguments based on "I haven't heard it yet" aren't terribly convincing.
Go hear it, please, and then come back with actual experience rather
than supposition.

-- Bob T.
Anonymous
May 6, 2004 3:38:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Even my Acoustat 1+1's had decent bass. The 2+2's were even better on
the low end.

Robert Trosper wrote:

> Andre Yew wrote:
>
>> Non-pistonic motion doesn't produce distortion, but instead produces
>> resonances that can be difficult to correct by electronic means. I
>> yet to hear or hear of a planar have impressive bass response.
>>
>
> Then you just haven't heard very widely or very far. Soundlab A1's, that
> I used to have, Magneplanar 3A's with sufficient amplification, Maggie
> 20.1's certainly all have impressive bass response set up correctly.
> Arguments based on "I haven't heard it yet" aren't terribly convincing.
> Go hear it, please, and then come back with actual experience rather
> than supposition.
>
> -- Bob T.
>
Anonymous
May 6, 2004 6:57:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Tue, 04 May 2004 18:12:59 GMT, andrey@silcom.com (Andre Yew) wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<QOakc.43042$0u6.7161157@attbi_s03>...
>> That's not an answer, as you can equally well EQ a planar dipole.
>
>Yes, but since the commercial planar dipoles use passive crossovers
>you can only compensate for dipole short circuiting at the expense of
>sensitivity, so it is a valid point that active dipole radiators can
>be more easily implemented for higher performance levels.

Not argued, but still irrelevant to any comparison of planar and
'coned' dipoles per se, since as noted, there's nothing to stop you
applying external EQ to the planar dipole, with no loss of sensitivity
at all.

>> The *displacement* however is quite similar (for the electrodynamics,
>> at least), and they are designed to provide low distortion at high SPLs
>> even allowing for the 'drumskin' motion.
>
>Non-pistonic motion doesn't produce distortion, but instead produces
>resonances that can be difficult to correct by electronic means.

When I were a lad, we called that distortion, and it's still the case
that large planars have measurably lower distortion than almost all
cone/dome speakers.............

> I have
>yet to hear or hear of a planar have impressive bass response.

Clearly, you have not heard of Magnepan Tympanis, Sound Lab A-1s or
Apogee Duettas and Divas.......................

>> That is a nonsensical statement - an active speaker doesn't *have*
>> sensitivity as such.
>
>It's not if you look at it as a whole system including system noise
>floor, dynamic range, and power required. As stated above, an active
>crossover makes things easier to implement.

Which are exactly the same for a passive system, especially one using
any of several planars which do not *have* crossovers, such as the M-L
CLS or Quad 988.

>> But you *do* need massive cone drivers with active EQ and a poweful
>> amplifier - it all depends what you're trying to achieve - there are
>> no 'free lunches' in acoustics!
>
>Hmm, the two channels of 60 Watts driving my Orion's bass drivers
>don't seem to be very powerful. Dynamic drivers are the way to go for
>dipolar bass, for excursion, pistonic motion, predictability, size,
>cost, and ultimately performance.

That's your opinion, but is not backed by reality. The only thing
dynamic drivers are good for, is avoiding the challenge of designing
and building a really *good* planar speaker. They are however
ultimately inferior in their vertical dispersion, and in their
interaction with the room, particularly as none of them have dipole
treble.

>> Rubbish! What's difficult about moving a Maggie?
>
>They're big and ungainly.

Which makes them difficult to move, how exactly? Now, my Duettas weigh
90 pounds each, so you might have more of a point there, but Maggies
aren't hard to move at all.

>> That's because it doesn't have good imaging.......
>
>And you know this by listening to the Orions?

I've heard most of the Linkwitz designs, and they're no better than
any other box speaker of comparable size when it comes to imaging. No
match at all for Quads or big Apogees.

> Planar radiators' peaky
>horizontal dispersion characteristics as well as structure-related
>resonances are more believable sources of imaging pickiness than their
>precision of imaging.

Not in my 40 years of experience, they're not. The imaging from my
Duetta Signatures is the best I've ever heard, this side of a
top-class minimonitor. Also, please note the reality of the situation
- everything from about 500Hz up is handled by *one* narrow ribbon
driver in my speakers, which is much better for imaging than the
ungainly stacked array of the Orion and similar dynamic speakers.

BTW, the most widely used of all planar speakers, the Quad 63/988, has
immaculate imaging as it is a point source design. I'm sure the Orions
are fine speakers, but please don't try to 'talk them up' with
specious arguments which have no basis in fact.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 5:41:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<Dnsmc.31576$TD4.5062389@attbi_s01>...
> On Tue, 04 May 2004 18:12:59 GMT, andrey@silcom.com (Andre Yew) wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<QOakc.43042$0u6.7161157@attbi_s03>...
> >> That's not an answer, as you can equally well EQ a planar dipole.
> >
> >Yes, but since the commercial planar dipoles use passive crossovers
> >you can only compensate for dipole short circuiting at the expense of
> >sensitivity, so it is a valid point that active dipole radiators can
> >be more easily implemented for higher performance levels.
>
> Not argued, but still irrelevant to any comparison of planar and
> 'coned' dipoles per se, since as noted, there's nothing to stop you
> applying external EQ to the planar dipole, with no loss of sensitivity
> at all.
>
> >> The *displacement* however is quite similar (for the electrodynamics,
> >> at least), and they are designed to provide low distortion at high SPLs
> >> even allowing for the 'drumskin' motion.
> >
> >Non-pistonic motion doesn't produce distortion, but instead produces
> >resonances that can be difficult to correct by electronic means.
>
> When I were a lad, we called that distortion, and it's still the case
> that large planars have measurably lower distortion than almost all
> cone/dome speakers.............
>
> > I have
> >yet to hear or hear of a planar have impressive bass response.
>
> Clearly, you have not heard of Magnepan Tympanis, Sound Lab A-1s or
> Apogee Duettas and Divas.......................
>
> >> That is a nonsensical statement - an active speaker doesn't *have*
> >> sensitivity as such.
> >
> >It's not if you look at it as a whole system including system noise
> >floor, dynamic range, and power required. As stated above, an active
> >crossover makes things easier to implement.
>
> Which are exactly the same for a passive system, especially one using
> any of several planars which do not *have* crossovers, such as the M-L
> CLS or Quad 988.
>
> >> But you *do* need massive cone drivers with active EQ and a poweful
> >> amplifier - it all depends what you're trying to achieve - there are
> >> no 'free lunches' in acoustics!
> >
> >Hmm, the two channels of 60 Watts driving my Orion's bass drivers
> >don't seem to be very powerful. Dynamic drivers are the way to go for
> >dipolar bass, for excursion, pistonic motion, predictability, size,
> >cost, and ultimately performance.
>
> That's your opinion, but is not backed by reality. The only thing
> dynamic drivers are good for, is avoiding the challenge of designing
> and building a really *good* planar speaker. They are however
> ultimately inferior in their vertical dispersion, and in their
> interaction with the room, particularly as none of them have dipole
> treble.
>
> >> Rubbish! What's difficult about moving a Maggie?
> >
> >They're big and ungainly.
>
> Which makes them difficult to move, how exactly? Now, my Duettas weigh
> 90 pounds each, so you might have more of a point there, but Maggies
> aren't hard to move at all.
>
> >> That's because it doesn't have good imaging.......
> >
> >And you know this by listening to the Orions?
>
> I've heard most of the Linkwitz designs, and they're no better than
> any other box speaker of comparable size when it comes to imaging. No
> match at all for Quads or big Apogees.
>
> > Planar radiators' peaky
> >horizontal dispersion characteristics as well as structure-related
> >resonances are more believable sources of imaging pickiness than their
> >precision of imaging.
>
> Not in my 40 years of experience, they're not. The imaging from my
> Duetta Signatures is the best I've ever heard, this side of a
> top-class minimonitor. Also, please note the reality of the situation
> - everything from about 500Hz up is handled by *one* narrow ribbon
> driver in my speakers, which is much better for imaging than the
> ungainly stacked array of the Orion and similar dynamic speakers.
>
> BTW, the most widely used of all planar speakers, the Quad 63/988, has
> immaculate imaging as it is a point source design. I'm sure the Orions
> are fine speakers, but please don't try to 'talk them up' with
> specious arguments which have no basis in fact.


I support Mr. Pinkerton's statements that excellent bass response is
available in planar loudspeakers. I concur on the Tympani's superb
bass capabilities. I owned 1D's twenty years ago, driven by big Luxman
solid-sate amps, after having owned Klipschorns and the biggest JBL's
ever made.

While set-up and amplifier choice was affected, the bass content and
quality was not a step down IMV. It was different in character, but
not in the sense of being "weak." Overall, it was an improvement in
low-end fidelity if not SPL. I have also owned numerous other Magnepan
products that all delivered competitive bass response (even "quantity"
wise) well within their price range.

I also worked at an Apogee dealership for awhile, and agree that the
company manufactured several models whose bass response was, in
generalized terms, easily competitive or superior to other comparably
priced high-end products we carried. Again, placement and amplifier
choice are big factors in supporting my contentions.

I also had very positive reactions regarding bass response with
several Sound Labs and Acoustat models. I have had very little
experience with Quads, however, despite my relatively diverse
background. The bottom line is that well designed planars are not
inherently lacking in bass performance.

By the way, I was a drummer and bought a 9' long, 700 lb. JBL Paragon
($5500 25 yrs ago) after the K-horns and before the Tympani's, so I'm
not a "bass ain't a big deal" guy. The Paragon (which was very
specifically set-up with a Crown EQ-2 and bi-amped) was the best for
dynamics, that "live sound" and bass FWIW. The EQ was essential.
Anonymous
May 14, 2004 7:35:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk wrote:



>
>On Tue, 04 May 2004 18:12:59 GMT, andrey@silcom.com (Andre Yew) wrote:
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<QOakc.43042$0u6.7161157@attbi_s03>...
>>> That's not an answer, as you can equally well EQ a planar dipole.
>>
>>Yes, but since the commercial planar dipoles use passive crossovers
>>you can only compensate for dipole short circuiting at the expense of
>>sensitivity, so it is a valid point that active dipole radiators can
>>be more easily implemented for higher performance levels.
>
>Not argued, but still irrelevant to any comparison of planar and
>'coned' dipoles per se, since as noted, there's nothing to stop you
>applying external EQ to the planar dipole, with no loss of sensitivity
>at all.
>
>>> The *displacement* however is quite similar (for the electrodynamics,
>>> at least), and they are designed to provide low distortion at high SPLs
>>> even allowing for the 'drumskin' motion.
>>
>>Non-pistonic motion doesn't produce distortion, but instead produces
>>resonances that can be difficult to correct by electronic means.
>
>When I were a lad, we called that distortion, and it's still the case
>that large planars have measurably lower distortion than almost all
>cone/dome speakers.............
>
>> I have
>>yet to hear or hear of a planar have impressive bass response.
>
>Clearly, you have not heard of Magnepan Tympanis, Sound Lab A-1s or
>Apogee Duettas and Divas.......................
>
>>> That is a nonsensical statement - an active speaker doesn't *have*
>>> sensitivity as such.
>>
>>It's not if you look at it as a whole system including system noise
>>floor, dynamic range, and power required. As stated above, an active
>>crossover makes things easier to implement.
>
>Which are exactly the same for a passive system, especially one using
>any of several planars which do not *have* crossovers, such as the M-L
>CLS or Quad 988.
>
>>> But you *do* need massive cone drivers with active EQ and a poweful
>>> amplifier - it all depends what you're trying to achieve - there are
>>> no 'free lunches' in acoustics!
>>
>>Hmm, the two channels of 60 Watts driving my Orion's bass drivers
>>don't seem to be very powerful. Dynamic drivers are the way to go for
>>dipolar bass, for excursion, pistonic motion, predictability, size,
>>cost, and ultimately performance.
>
>That's your opinion, but is not backed by reality. The only thing
>dynamic drivers are good for, is avoiding the challenge of designing
>and building a really *good* planar speaker. They are however
>ultimately inferior in their vertical dispersion, and in their
>interaction with the room, particularly as none of them have dipole
>treble.
>
>>> Rubbish! What's difficult about moving a Maggie?
>>
>>They're big and ungainly.
>
>Which makes them difficult to move, how exactly? Now, my Duettas weigh
>90 pounds each, so you might have more of a point there, but Maggies
>aren't hard to move at all.
>
>>> That's because it doesn't have good imaging.......
>>
>>And you know this by listening to the Orions?
>
>I've heard most of the Linkwitz designs, and they're no better than
>any other box speaker of comparable size when it comes to imaging. No
>match at all for Quads or big Apogees.
>
>> Planar radiators' peaky
>>horizontal dispersion characteristics as well as structure-related
>>resonances are more believable sources of imaging pickiness than their
>>precision of imaging.
>
>Not in my 40 years of experience, they're not. The imaging from my
>Duetta Signatures is the best I've ever heard, this side of a
>top-class minimonitor. Also, please note the reality of the situation
>- everything from about 500Hz up is handled by *one* narrow ribbon
>driver in my speakers, which is much better for imaging than the
>ungainly stacked array of the Orion and similar dynamic speakers.
>
>BTW, the most widely used of all planar speakers, the Quad 63/988, has
>immaculate imaging as it is a point source design. I'm sure the Orions
>are fine speakers, but please don't try to 'talk them up' with
>specious arguments which have no basis in fact.
>--
>
>Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I feel strongly both ways. But the real reason the moving coil loudspeaker
remains king today is because it has the best set of compromises for
reproducing sound.

In the few ways it can be seen as better (limited vertical radiation pattern
and rear radiation; the latter of which IMO could be duplicated with moving
coil designs) multichannel moving coil speaker systems are capable of providing
equivalent or better performance.

But quite frankly in this case as Delbert McClinton likes to say "it ain't what
you eat but the way that you chew it." IME system deployment and set-up is
often much more important than the particular devices used.
Anonymous
October 8, 2010 1:55:50 AM

Planar speakers have very accurate bass response. Larger models of Magneplanars, for example are quite flat to 30Hz (3 series). The largest models extend that down to 20Hz. Room placement is critical because of the nature of a dipole speaker and how it radiates sound. Most of us have grown up around cone speakers which have the ability to really extend the throw of a wave, (though the wave is not usually an accurate representation of the signal) and their point source nature has become our point of reference. Listening to bass from a planar speaker is a much more true experience because there is no coloration from the physical properties of the cone and its box. The planars are very quick because they move very little, and their huge surface areas make up the difference. Getting used to a large planar is like having a veil removed - you recognize the sound of cones and their coloration of bass and mids for ever afterwards.
October 8, 2010 2:38:42 AM

You must be really desperate to revive a thread from 2004.
Anonymous
October 8, 2010 6:04:54 AM

This topic has been closed by Fihart
!